Mrs Goundo’s Daughter

Don’t miss the Washington DC and New York City premieres of this documentary about one couple’s journey to obtain asylum in the United States in order to save their daughters from the horror of female circumcision.

Mrs. Goundo’s Daughter is the sensitively told story of a Malian mother’s fight for asylum in the US to protect her two-year-old from female genital cutting. To stay in the US, Goundo must persuade an immigration judge that her US-born daughter, Djenabou, will suffer this procedure if Goundo is deported. In Mali, where 85 percent of women and girls experience clitoral excision, Goundo and her husband are convinced they would be powerless to protect their daughter from her grandparents, who believe all girls should be excised. The film bridges Goundo’s two worlds, expertly interweaving scenes from Mali of girls preparing for an excision ceremony and scenes from Philadelphia where those who have survived the procedure share their stories.

Kudos to my good friend Janet Goldwater and her fellow filmaker Barbara Attie for once again taking on the issues of women in their documentaries. Previous films from these two include Motherless, the story of men and women who lost their mothers to illegal abortions, I Witness, the story of the Pensacola Florida abortion clinic bombings and Rosita, the story of a Nicaraguan family’s struggle to obtain an abortion for their 9 year old child, impregnanted during a rape.
____________________________________________
Mrs Guondo’s Daughter is being shown at Silverdocs/AFI Discovery Film Channel Festival in Washington DC on June 17 (12:30 pm) and June 20th (12:30 pm), and at the Human Rights Watch Film Festival in NYC on June 21 (7 pm), June 22 (4pm) and June 23 (9pm).

3 Responses to Mrs Goundo’s Daughter

  1. Thank you for calling attention to this critically important issue. All women need to speak out loudly for woman's rights and to abolish this custom.

  2. You know something?

    I am neither female, nor African… but still I think maybe the people who agitate (understandably) against this practice would get further if instead of calling it "circumcision" (which is most definitely is not), they called it "clitoridectomy" (or at least it's country cousin, "clitorectomy"). Then maybe more *men* would get the impact of the thing…

    *Lots* of men are circumsized, and it generally isn't a big deal to us.

  3. Baylink –

    I agree. The use of the word cicumcision makes the practice in women seem less harmful than it is.

    The practice of male circumcision is much less of a procedure, and has health benefits rather than risks – a recent randomized trial in adult males in Africa found lowere rates of HIV in circumcised men).

    Circumcision of women carries no benefits and many health risks.

    Thanks for your comments.

Leave a Reply